TexasCHLforum.com

Pariah3j wrote:

mojo84 wrote:We always end up with someone wanting to push the envelope. I doubt very seriously a holster attached to a plate carrier or tactical vest will be considered a shoulder holster. Why do some feel the need of desire to all the sudden start dressing like they are fighting in a war combat zone? How did you guys survive this long without all of the tactical gear?

Mojo - How have you survived without it ?

Kidding aside, I don't intend to put this on and go shopping at Walmart. My honest thought was it might be a great option when hiking/camping because my pack has a waist wrap/belt that makes a gun on belt/waist very uncomfortable.

Providing of course that OC is allowed where you hike.

A chest holster like these is more comfortable/practical in a number of circumstances. Driving or really anything sitting down - that's why the M7 was used by tank crews and pilots. Almost all US special operations guys have migrated from drop leg holsters to chest holsters - though most regular troups are still using drop legs.

Also better for outdoor activities like backpacking, hunting with a rifle or shotgun (I carry a day pack when deer hunting), of fishing.

The under the armpit shoulder holster was developed for concealment. If concealment isn't necessary, a chest holster is almost always a better option.

I'm just hoping that LEO's and DA's are reasonable enough to legally consider it a shoulder holster. I have no intension of ending up a test case.

Glockster wrote:
Providing of course that OC is allowed where you hike.

My understanding is traditionally State and National parks have followed local gun laws. Texas now having OC, I assume this would be the same, but I have not looked into it since OC became the law of the land. Any information otherwise I would be grateful to hear.

Brazos_Jack wrote:A chest holster like these is more comfortable/practical in a number of circumstances. Driving or really anything sitting down - that's why the M7 was used by tank crews and pilots. Almost all US special operations guys have migrated from drop leg holsters to chest holsters - though most regular troups are still using drop legs.

Also better for outdoor activities like backpacking, hunting with a rifle or shotgun (I carry a day pack when deer hunting), of fishing.

The under the armpit shoulder holster was developed for concealment. If concealment isn't necessary, a chest holster is almost always a better option.

I'm just hoping that LEO's and DA's are reasonable enough to legally consider it a shoulder holster. I have no intension of ending up a test case.

Yes, not wanting to be a test case, this is why I brought it up here to see what the various opinions might be. I guess for now I'll just have to stick with a drop leg holster, but even that has a fair amount of contention surrounding it.

Pariah3j wrote:

Glockster wrote:
Providing of course that OC is allowed where you hike.

My understanding is traditionally State and National parks have followed local gun laws. Texas now having OC, I assume this would be the same, but I have not looked into it since OC became the law of the land. Any information otherwise I would be grateful to hear.

Back in 2011 or 2013 a bill was passed that made it so that state and national parks had to follow the gun laws of the states that they were in. So OC would be legal in state and national parks in Texas now, with a license. However, you cannot carry into any federal facilities (buildings), so be careful of that.

ScottDLS<----- Trying to figure out how to bring GFSZA into this before TAM beats me to it.

ScottDLS wrote: ScottDLS<----- Trying to figure out how to bring GFSZA into this before TAM beats me to it.

You could remind us that open carrying in a GFSZA while legal, may not be advisable ?

I could see wearing this holster in concealed carry with a snap-up cover shirt. It looks like a decent and comfortable way to carry. I just don't think I'd be comfortable open carrying this way except for backpacking in the wilderness (as Pariah said). I could see myself one day open carrying with a standard OWB belt holster (currently I wouldn't want the extra attention), but definitely not something like this.

Pariah3j wrote:

Glockster wrote:
Providing of course that OC is allowed where you hike.

My understanding is traditionally State and National parks have followed local gun laws. Texas now having OC, I assume this would be the same, but I have not looked into it since OC became the law of the land. Any information otherwise I would be grateful to hear.

Not traditionally, but as a matter of law enacted on May 22, 2009, and which became effective February 22, 2010 that covers National Parks, Forests and Wildlife areas. And of course TX State Parks fall under TX laws. But my posted on the rush response was more towards thinking about not carrying in places like any of the buildings in the Federal parks/forests (including fee collection stations and park stores) and to serve as a reminder that you need to make sure that you are in property that allows for carry as the OP didn't say where he was going to hike (I.e., you can't in COE property).

As an LEO I have to say that a lot of people on this thread are reading into this a little much. I would like to point out that while I don't speak for all LEOs out there I can definitely speak for some in saying that the MAJORITY of LEOs are PRO-GUN and PRO-CARRY. So if you decide to use one of these Kenai chest/shoulder rigs I think you would be fine.

You could possibly get some grief if you were acting a fool and you were deciding to open carry at an inappropriate time/place. I do think this type of holster does draw a lot more attention to you than most so it would just depend on the scenario..

Would I carry into a Chilis wearing this Kenai holster.. absolutely not. Into cabelas before a hunt or to a gas station.. sure..

HOWEVER, the majority of the LEOs that I know and work with including myself are generally going to shake your hand and thank you for being a responsible LTC holder, and that is IF we (have to) make contact with you.

During my instructor's class earlier this year, the trooper made a point of highlighting the ambiguity in the laws as currently stated.

• He put a pistol in a holster attached to a belt, then slung the belt over his shoulder and asked does it meet the requirement?
  He took a 32oz cup from 7-11, taped it to his waist with blue painter's tape, put his pistol in it, then asked us if it met the requirement? Several said "a cup isn't a holster" and he said "why not? What is a 'holster'?" Some argued that it needed to be a restraint holster, so he put another piece of tape across the back of the pistol.

He was making the point that none of this is well defined and will be open to interpretation by LEOs, judges and possibly juries.

Bottom line, be reasonable and don't intentionally try to push the limits unless you want to be a test case.